Rain is bad, ogerpon-w destroys it. Meanwhile, overqwil, Rain abuser that kills ogerpon-w, is shit in Rain. Give me 7 counter arguments And I will reconsider it. otherwise you won't change my mind.
To respond sincerely to this, the issue is that Overqwil, while decently matched into Ogerpon-W, is not a very effective Rain presence otherwise since it lacks STAB on Rain-boosted moves, is not very bulky without Intimidate (in which case it forgoes the Swift Swim you would theoretically be using under Rain), and struggles against other important mons Rain would be concerned with giving free turns to such as Kingambit.
While Overqwil would perform well against Ogerpon, it's using a valuable slot for suboptimal overall performance, so Ogerpon-W is negatively impacting the Rain team's viability whether that weakness is "left" or accounted for via Overqwil. If there existed a "Johto" version of Overqwil that retained the Water/Poison typing it probably would fare much better and perform the role in question effectively.
For those that played actual gens before this one where gliscor was allowed, it's no secret that this mon always required a strong level of prep to not autolose. And still with good prep behind for it, gliscor could still win if played correctly, if it was for me I would have considered a suspect long ago in past gens like sm and oras. What changed then with sv? Gliscor still requires high preparation, what makes it more troublesome is the fact that this high level of preparation struggles with all the other preps you do with the current threats around, that require even more effort than gliscor to be answered to. If you put in the cauldron all the booster threats, gambit, gholdengo, sneasler, manaphy, ogerpon then yes indeed gliscor might seem more busted than it should be. Do you want to make it even more insufferable? Add tera in the mix and you get a full clown contest. Because as much as the surveys will tell you to not think about it and postpone tera discussion and thinking, no, you can't. Tera is the biggest part of gen 9 and also the biggest culprit of the major problems we have, it can't be ignored and has to be discussed as well if you want to have a full vision of the metagame.
Since we've arrived here, back to the hazards issue. We know already defog is limited and spinning in a gen of various and strong ghost mons is not reliable. Have you considered that tera exacerbates further the problem? I doubt I'm the only one seeing setters running tera ghost/steel depending if they want to answer rapid spin or mortal spin. Or the common scenario seen between baloon gholdengo and tusk. Even if tusk manages to break the baloon with ice spinner then tera moments start when you can't go for a kill with head long rush because gholdengo can tera, tank the hit and rkill tusk. You might then say yes but now you consumed your tera for this sequence, indeed, now your team is totally punished by webs dropping your speed and good luck revenge killing manaphy and friends. The advantage can be so big that consuming your tera is worthy enough. And then at this point I ask you all(rhetorical question) if gliscor is also the best webs setter. Removing gliscor won't change the fact that the restriction on the builder will still be super heavy that going full heavy duty boots or playing cinderace will be your best chance to not succumb to webs or other kind of hazards stacking. Surprisingly gliscor is not the only good spiker, both ting lu and samurott do an egregious job, ting lu in case gliscor goes will only be buffed and tera ghost sets can still setup as much as they like on tusk and keep the fun going, something we already saw in past iterations of the metagame.
I want to respond to a few of these statements, with the disclaimer that I am a much worse player in practice than on paper so feel free to take grains of salt with what I say based on that admission.
I find bringing up Tera in this post very interesting because it underlines one of the major changes that has affected Gliscor's position this Gen vs last: In previous generations, Gliscor was troubled by a 4x Weakness on its worse defensive stat to arguably the most common Hidden Power coverage, meaning a LOT of Pokemon carried a way to get around it that also benefited match-ups with the rest of the tier. With that removal, Ice and Water coverage is significantly more limited outside of Pokemon that bear them as STAB types without using Tera Blast, which then is a trade-off with the other uses of Tera you outline later in the post.
On the Hazard discussion, this doesn't really change the argument. Gliscor exacerbates the Hazard stack issue even more than these Pokemon do because it has a borderline perfect defensive Profile for that Meta (Immune to everything but Neutral SR and Poison Heal recovers SR's damage on top of other benefits like Status Immunity). Even if Gliscor had not been given Spikes I would still hazard a guess it would be highly controversial (if not high priority to Suspect as it is now) simply because Gliscor has so many easy ways to block Progress while making them itself in Toxic and Knock Off, the latter removing the boots so many teams rely on to not lose more-per-switch than Gliscor does, though Spikeless Gliscor is theorymon in this case. Ting-Lu and Samurott-H might be extremely effective as Spikes setters, but they are NOT in the same league as Gliscor is on that front, such that if you consider them "egregious" then I would be hard-pressed to know what criteria does not also include Gliscor.
The Tera example is particularly interesting to me because if anything I would be inclined to say Gliscor is MORE busted in a Tera-less Generation 9, since removing Tera will primarily hinder offensive styles which as is already struggle to break through Glis-Cores the majority of the time, and Gliscor itself seldom uses the mechanic because of the above-mentioned benefits of its base type. I don't even disagree with the notion that Tera is an unbalanced mechanic (I don't want to take a strong stance until we know the game's done with major shake-ups in DLC2), but arguing that Tera makes the offensive roster of the tier too powerful and varied (particularly citing set-up users) whilst also arguing Gliscor is the only Defensive presence holding them back
a mon like this is needed to keep up with the obscene amount of offensive threats, it's a crucial presence and should only leave in later stages if possible when the other gigantic problems are taken care of, banning it now in my eyes means aggravating the situation.
feels like an admission that Gliscor is simply broken-defense checking broken-offense, when that offense is a very long list of Pokemon due to Tera. If anything this is an argument in favor of a Ban vote for Gliscor because most Pro-Ban arguments find it suffocating against broken attackers, much less the "balanced" state one would argue them to be in with a Tera ban/restriction.
No one is mentioning rillaboom, in my opinion that mon has warped the metagame on a large scale as well, enables sneasler further(a mon that still hasn't seen action and that really scares me how it's so accepted to play the rng game with that thing and dire claw moments) and on its own it's a big challenge to switch into because of teragrass wood hammer and grassy glide, both cb and sd sets are devastating. But is rillaboom fine because it's funnier to spam wood hammer compared to gliscor spamming toxic and spikes? I wonder about that.
Unnecessarily condescending phrasing aside, this is falling into whataboutism. Sneasler very frequently comes up in this thread as a subject of controversy (and several thread posts here are FINALLY arguing from the crowd I was in that Dire Claw is trash cheese vs Gunk Shot's power on the Sweeper sets) and everyone knows it's heavily enabled by Grassy Terrain from Rillaboom who is cited very often as a powerful Meta presence itself. With all of THAT said, the accusation of hypocrisy or double-standard entailed by "funnier to spam Wood Hammer compared to Gliscor" is to make the assumption that people don't consider Rillaboom and Sneasler problematic enough to be acted on simply because survey respondents thought Gliscor was more significant to act on
first. This isn't even incongruent because Sneasler struggles into Gliscor so if we assume all 3 Pokemon are unbalanced, removing Gliscor would highlight Sneasler's problems, whereas the argument here almost (unintentionally or otherwise) suggests Sneasler is OP enough to act on before Gliscor in a Metagame heavily favoring two of Sneasler's best checks in it and Gholdengo.
Also, what the heck is this supposed to suggest?
First of all I really dislike the way this suspect started. The campaign surrounding it and moved by individuals like
njnp seemed quite awkward to me, for you in particular, being someone that cares about reaching a balanced state of the metagame and then being one of the supporters of a future darkrai test, you don't really seem to have a clear idea of what you want to achieve. You mentioned that getting rid of gliscor would solve the hazards issue and unless you changed stance on this I'll tell you that it's not solving a single thing and you could find way better arguments to support a gliscor test( which would be respectable, if only this gen was handled in a proper way but it's not the case). Yes gliscor was pictured as the monster warping the metagame and constricting it to the point that its influence is unmatched and the campaign moved this way helped reaching a consensus in the latest surveys. I find the latter very easy to manipulate and in my opinion you did it well to convince a lot of people that it is the actual problem,
moving the attention away from far more problematic threats and situations that maybe you don't want to address or make the playerbase aware of.
...
If the council would, it could definitely raise awareness on the problems surrounding the metagame(as they did with gliscor and encouraging to ban it) and not relying solely on surveys to take action(the only move that made sense was quickbanning volcarona, ironically a regretted decision by many of them only because there was not enough consensus), assuming they have an idea of what is happening but it doesn't seem the case for now. A more aggressive approach is what could maybe save this gen together with a removal of terastallization and then proceed to ban all the powecreepped beasts that have no business in an ou environment.
And if this approach can't be taken because of a flawed tiering policy then that should change too because for now following it didn't bring any good result.
...I also encourage the posters here to use more critical thinking and not necessarily blindly following the most fashionable users that are for sure entitled to have their opinion, but having strong support for that opinion doesn't make them right on all the matters.
This is sounding like the "Big Stall" jokes people make about Finch and the council, but unironically, the seriously suggest Gliscor is up for tiering action over "more problematic threats and situations" because some prominent players and a Council member voiced their contention with the Pokemon and people agree with it? In a forum that considers public opinion, telling people your position and attempting to convince them to align with your vote is pretty typical interaction. Is this supposed to cast doubt on the Gliscor vote as a large sect of people "following the leader" on the ban vote, despite Gliscor placing MARKEDLY higher amongst the "Qualified" tiering Survey vs the General input (3.53 vs 3.99 is ~12% difference, which is very significant)? Encouraging posters to "use more critical thinking" is a very back-handed way to phrase it, especially when the suspect/action was pushed for more heavily by the players who already "git gud" so to speak over the "anyone can read and then vote" category.
I don't even get what your point is about "not relying solely on surveys" as if Finch and multiple Council Members haven't expressed several times that they think Gliscor to be unhealthy or at least worthy of investigating as such prior to the Suspect announcement. If they didn't go by what the surveys said, that wouldn't likely have led to something else being acted on before Gliscor. If anything the alignment between Council and Survey position shows exactly why the surveys are important: they verify that tiering action from the higher-ups is reflecting what the playerbase would want to happen.
To borrow methods of argument used in this post, I encourage you to consider that if your position represents such a significant departure from multiple Council Members, the Forum Goers AND the Qualified Survey base, that you may need stronger arguments than
- Deflecting to Tera-Broken with Gliscor holding it in check
- Citing other Spikes users as overbearing (correct or not) as if to say "why bother?" about Gliscor's overall weight
- Whataboutism with not suspecting other threats that have been acknowledged, even if not as problematic, first
- Accusing the playerbase of not thinking critically enough or prominent players of "campaigning" or manipulating public opinion when it does not align with your own position
Your contributor and WCoP Champion badges clearly indicate a player who knows their stuff, but the arguments presented in this specific post do not make a strong case for the point put forth. I don't blindly follow big user opinions, and simply put the opinion shared by Pro-Ban/Suspect "fashionable" users was more convincingly argued under a critical eye than the Anti-Ban ones so far.
(not actually ou but was on enough hail teams towards the end of gen 8 that it would've gotten there)
(before it got a physical ice move)
